We all have personal behaviors that we would like to change. For instance, to lose some weight, to exercise more, to give up a bad habit, to incorporate a good habit and some personal "nudges" can be used to help an individual make changes in their own life. What concerns me is when we are unknowingly being "nudged" into behavior without our realizing it. When nudges is applied on us without our acknowledgement it is manipulation and control. It is the unknowing "nudges" that are being used on all of us that I am trying to make others aware of with this blog. That is why a great interest for this site is being promoting by so many others. Now hundreds are reading this blog daily to learn how to become more aware of others who are trying to use "nudges" to manipulate their behavior.
Priming: Activating particular associations in memory. Our memory is built on connections of associations, and priming is the awakening or activation of certain associations within our memory. Many experiments have shown over and over that priming one's thoughts, even without awareness of the person, can influence another thought and even action. Even subliminal priming can stimulate people into action, even when the priming was too brief to even be recognized and be perceived consciously. There is much of our social influence and information processing that is automatic. It is unintentional, and happens without our conscious awareness (Meyers). Sunstein and Thaler in Nudge encourage the use of priming by private, public, business and government sources to harness this social influence to become nudgers to "channel" certain behaviors. They say "sometimes the merest hint of an idea or concept will trigger an association that can stimulate action. These "primes" and their effects can be surprisingly powerful." Manipulations that are subtle can have an unnoticeable force for influence and change, and as such is playing with your subconscious in ways that you will never even know. But they do!
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Determinism or Free Will?
After struggling through a chapter on quantum physics I thought my brain would explode. I was wondering why the heck I had to learn about something so tiny that it mostly can't even be measured due to how small it is. But then at the conclusion of the chapter I realized that understanding this breaks down to two key theories in life...determinism and free will. I will explain by incorporating Occam's Razor rule that where two or more explanations exist for the same physical phenomenon, we should choose the simplest one...In other words: keep it simple!
The two philosophical theories that are in contradiction are Newton's Laws of Motion and quantum mechanics. Newton's Laws explained the principle of knowing the precise values of an object's position and momentum. In knowing this and the object's interactions with other objects, people could then predict exactly where things will be and how fast they will be moving for all times in the future. But, with quantum mechanic's Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the location and motion of objects are only probable. This boils down to the two big debates of our time: Determinism vs. Free Will.
With Newton's theory the world is determined because the physical world is like a giant machine that continues on its predetermined course once it is set in motion. For those that ascribe to this belief the future is set in stone, it is totally predetermined by events that were set in motion along time ago. On the other hand, there is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which argues that the universe is not pre-determined due to the fact that the probabilities are not known on an individual encounter.
Einstein thought that the view of quantum mechanics was not known because it was not complete due to the fact that the scientists' just lacked information at that stage. But, Niels Bohr argued that when it came down to an individual electron it was not determined until the moment the electron actually struck the screen. He claimed that it was impossible to predict what would happen even if the scientists' had all the available information.
There you have it! I tried to keep it simple but I still thought you should know that there is purpose in understanding (briefly) quantum physics even if you aren't a scientists. This is the debate I have been discussing through out my posts with regard to applied social psychology and determinism by nudging. Social psychologists believe in a determinist world and they are out to figure out people's behavior in order to control it.
The two philosophical theories that are in contradiction are Newton's Laws of Motion and quantum mechanics. Newton's Laws explained the principle of knowing the precise values of an object's position and momentum. In knowing this and the object's interactions with other objects, people could then predict exactly where things will be and how fast they will be moving for all times in the future. But, with quantum mechanic's Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the location and motion of objects are only probable. This boils down to the two big debates of our time: Determinism vs. Free Will.
With Newton's theory the world is determined because the physical world is like a giant machine that continues on its predetermined course once it is set in motion. For those that ascribe to this belief the future is set in stone, it is totally predetermined by events that were set in motion along time ago. On the other hand, there is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which argues that the universe is not pre-determined due to the fact that the probabilities are not known on an individual encounter.
Einstein thought that the view of quantum mechanics was not known because it was not complete due to the fact that the scientists' just lacked information at that stage. But, Niels Bohr argued that when it came down to an individual electron it was not determined until the moment the electron actually struck the screen. He claimed that it was impossible to predict what would happen even if the scientists' had all the available information.
There you have it! I tried to keep it simple but I still thought you should know that there is purpose in understanding (briefly) quantum physics even if you aren't a scientists. This is the debate I have been discussing through out my posts with regard to applied social psychology and determinism by nudging. Social psychologists believe in a determinist world and they are out to figure out people's behavior in order to control it.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Social Influence
Everyone thinks that they are authentic and autonomous and not following the crowd. Nevertheless, social influence has a huge effect on how people chose and how they act. Social influence leads to conformity. It is like a stampeding herd which no one knows how it got started nor which direction it will go. An excellent example of this is the Arab Spring. NO ONE KNEW that a small event in Tunisia would lead to leaders being overturned in governments through out the Middle-East. Who could have predicted the power of the social influence involved? Sure, there were many other factors that came into play, like the social media aspect of Facebook and Twitter. But aren't they social influences?
Social Influence is the power to change and influence people's thoughts, feelings and behaviors. This can be accomplished through imitation, conformity, compliance, obedience and persuasion. As Sunstein and Thaler would say: through social nudges.
Conformity is changing your behavior to fit in with a group. Some social psychologist contend that they can even predict when a person will conform according to a person's social expectation due to social norms. (I have been talking about this through-out my posts--scroll down for more information and connections)
Sunstein and Thaler in Nudge argue that culture, politics, economic decisions and advertising all rely on the notion of social influence. They state that "the effects of social influences may or may not be deliberately planned by particular people but small interventions and coincidences, at a key stage, can produce large variations in outcomes." The way this can be accomplished so easily is just to mention this is what "most people prefer" or "this is the most popular item" or "growing numbers of people are switching to" or this is the "top 5 searches on google." Then with this in mind, think of the power of the news stating the results of a Pew or Gallop poll. The power of social influence is immense. Therefore, people conform to what they think other people expect and what other people are doing. The sad thing about this (and there are many) is who starts the direction of the nudge? Where does it begin? If everyone is following or conforming, who is leading? Accordingly, it is the choice architects. It is the agents of influence and change. Are you down-loading a song because you know it is a good or because 546,000 others have downloaded that song, that video, etc. Just try to pay attention to how often someone... is trying to get you to conform and follow-the-leader. This isn't kindergarten, it is time to pay attention to the choices you are making.
Social Influence is the power to change and influence people's thoughts, feelings and behaviors. This can be accomplished through imitation, conformity, compliance, obedience and persuasion. As Sunstein and Thaler would say: through social nudges.
Conformity is changing your behavior to fit in with a group. Some social psychologist contend that they can even predict when a person will conform according to a person's social expectation due to social norms. (I have been talking about this through-out my posts--scroll down for more information and connections)
Sunstein and Thaler in Nudge argue that culture, politics, economic decisions and advertising all rely on the notion of social influence. They state that "the effects of social influences may or may not be deliberately planned by particular people but small interventions and coincidences, at a key stage, can produce large variations in outcomes." The way this can be accomplished so easily is just to mention this is what "most people prefer" or "this is the most popular item" or "growing numbers of people are switching to" or this is the "top 5 searches on google." Then with this in mind, think of the power of the news stating the results of a Pew or Gallop poll. The power of social influence is immense. Therefore, people conform to what they think other people expect and what other people are doing. The sad thing about this (and there are many) is who starts the direction of the nudge? Where does it begin? If everyone is following or conforming, who is leading? Accordingly, it is the choice architects. It is the agents of influence and change. Are you down-loading a song because you know it is a good or because 546,000 others have downloaded that song, that video, etc. Just try to pay attention to how often someone... is trying to get you to conform and follow-the-leader. This isn't kindergarten, it is time to pay attention to the choices you are making.
Adjustment Bureau
Tonight I want to do a short comment on the movie Adjustment Bureau. The movie was adapted from a Philip K. Dick story called Adjustment Team. Other movies that have been based on Philip K. Dick books are, Paycheck, Minority Report, Blade Runner, Total Recall, and Next.
Adjustment Bureau is one of the few movies I have seen recently that has a believable love story while relating information on the loss of free will and personal choice. The movie portrays an adjustment to the way people think when they get off the planned course. The movie makes you think (read my blog Thou shalt think) and perhaps wonder at the extent and length that the Adjustment Bureau might take to influence behavior to get the results or consequences that it is desired. The important lesson from this movie (if one is looking) is the way to change the outcome is to change and not conform. Many people today do not want to stand against the group even if they have to ignore the evidence of their own perceptions. Not only are people lead to think certain ways by framing and priming but they are afraid to go against the majority thought. Sunstein and Thaler argue in Nudge that "people will go along with the group even when they think, or know, that everyone else has blundered. Unanimous groups are able to provide the strongest nudges--even when the question is an easy one, and people ought to know that everyone else is wrong." They further state that "a little nudge, if it is expressed confidently, can have a major consequence for the group's conclusion. The clear lesson here is that consistent and unwavering people, in the private or public sector, can move groups and practices in their preferred direction." That sounds like an adjustment bureau to me.
Adjustment Bureau is one of the few movies I have seen recently that has a believable love story while relating information on the loss of free will and personal choice. The movie portrays an adjustment to the way people think when they get off the planned course. The movie makes you think (read my blog Thou shalt think) and perhaps wonder at the extent and length that the Adjustment Bureau might take to influence behavior to get the results or consequences that it is desired. The important lesson from this movie (if one is looking) is the way to change the outcome is to change and not conform. Many people today do not want to stand against the group even if they have to ignore the evidence of their own perceptions. Not only are people lead to think certain ways by framing and priming but they are afraid to go against the majority thought. Sunstein and Thaler argue in Nudge that "people will go along with the group even when they think, or know, that everyone else has blundered. Unanimous groups are able to provide the strongest nudges--even when the question is an easy one, and people ought to know that everyone else is wrong." They further state that "a little nudge, if it is expressed confidently, can have a major consequence for the group's conclusion. The clear lesson here is that consistent and unwavering people, in the private or public sector, can move groups and practices in their preferred direction." That sounds like an adjustment bureau to me.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Heuristics in diagnoses in psychology
In lecture I was taught that not only doctors make mistakes with their diagnoses but so do psychologists and psychiatrists. They also fall victim to making heuristics (quick decisions or short-cuts). One problem that occurs is the illusory correlation which is a psychological heuristic that involves seeing relationships one expects to see even when no such relationship exists. They can also error in confirmation bias which is presumptive questioning that will lead the interviewer to the diagnoses he or she seeks. This occurred frequently in the 1980's and 1990's with the onslaught of repressed memories diagnoses. It was done by the framing of the questions that leads the patient down a road of false memories until they seem to be real. And this in turn gives the proof of the diagnoses. Then the hindsight bias can occur which is the clinician feeling I-knew-it-all-along. This is not to say that this always happens but just that it can and does happen.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Representative Heuristics made by Doctors
Do doctors make the same mistakes in their thinking that Sunstein, Thaler and Shiller (and many others) say we all make? According to an article written in the New Yorker (1/29/2007) by Jerome Groopman...sadly they do. Groopman states that doctors have two or three diagnoses within minutes of meeting with the patient. The minute they walk into the room they are assessing your appearance, complexion, the way you hold your head, movements of the eyes and mouth, the way you sit or stand and your breathing. They make their diagnoses on "short-cuts or rules of thumb, known in psychology as heuristics." These heuristics or quick judgements can be the cause of "grave errors." Another mistake that doctors make is the representativeness error being influenced by what is "typically true." Doctors also can use what is known as the availability heuristic which is the tendency to judge the likelihood of an event by the ease with which relevant examples come to mind. Then they rely on a confirmation bias which is finding problems that confirm what they expect to find by selectively accepting or ignoring information. They also can fall victim to what Shiller (last nights blog) calls wishful thinking or affective error in which a decision is based on what they wish were true because they like you or you remind them of themselves or they know you well.
Studies are being done on the way doctors think with a new field of study in this area. Groopman argues that doctors may not be the "dispassionate and rational actors that we think they are." Instead, doctors are susceptible to emotion and biases and make cognitive errors in judgement. Groopman quotes Dr. Croskerry (head of Dartmouth General Hospital) stating "currently in medical training, we fail to recognize the importance of critical thinking and critical reasoning. The implicit assumption in medicine is that we know how to think. But we don't."
This is an example of the many theories and terms and ways of thinking or not thinking that is taught and asserted by psychologists, applied social psychologists, policy makers and regulation czars. This article is worrisome to say the least. Besure to take a minute to look it up and give it a read so that you can read the many examples of doctors and their mistaken diagnoses. Well, that is if you have the stomach for it.
Studies are being done on the way doctors think with a new field of study in this area. Groopman argues that doctors may not be the "dispassionate and rational actors that we think they are." Instead, doctors are susceptible to emotion and biases and make cognitive errors in judgement. Groopman quotes Dr. Croskerry (head of Dartmouth General Hospital) stating "currently in medical training, we fail to recognize the importance of critical thinking and critical reasoning. The implicit assumption in medicine is that we know how to think. But we don't."
This is an example of the many theories and terms and ways of thinking or not thinking that is taught and asserted by psychologists, applied social psychologists, policy makers and regulation czars. This article is worrisome to say the least. Besure to take a minute to look it up and give it a read so that you can read the many examples of doctors and their mistaken diagnoses. Well, that is if you have the stomach for it.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Principles of Behavioral Finance
Tonight I want to explain a few terms that were quoted from Nudge in last nights blog. I am finding that these terms are used by many that are teaching, prompting or explaining behavioral economics, behavioral finance, and applied social psychology. Also, I find that my textbook, Nudge, and Dr. Robert Shiller (professor of economics at Yale, specializes in behavioral economics) all use basically the same examples to explain the concepts, as well. First, a word on Dr. Robert Shiller. He is the author of two books which (I believe) may explain the new movement mentioned by Thaler and Sunstein: libertarian paternalism regarding economics. His latest books are Irrational Exuberance and The New Financial Order. I mention Dr. Shiller because I will use his definitions of terms from his Open University course on Economics offered free of charge to anyone online (check it out...many full courses available).
Dr. Shiller states the principles of behavior finance are:
Wishful thinking: "people tend to make the error of believing what they want to believe, leading to biased probablility." An example of this kind of erronous thinking is believing your team will win or the candidate you voted for will win just because you want them to.
Attention Anomalies: "human attention tend to be sporadic, we make errors in attention." We give too much attention to some things while we pay too little attention to other things. Shiller argues that people tend to pay attention to what other people are paying attention to. Thus, we give excess attention to the media lead agenda setters (nudge). Consequently, we forget the details and specifics but remember generalities. My textbook calls this online judgement: judgement that is made at the moment that is processed and then is stored and determines our attitude formation and behavior.
Anchoring: "people make quanative judgements by subconsciously using some arbitrary stimulus. Then we tend to have over confidence in our anchored judgements...we think we know." Besure to look back at last nights blog to see how useful Sunstein and Thaler thinks anchors are. Remember anchors are placed and well-chosen nudges.
Representativeness Heuristics: "This refers to a human tendency to judge events on basis of similarity to other events that are prominent in our mind without regard to the actual probability of the event."
These key terms should help to inform you more closely of the mistakes we make in our assumptions that the choice architects, influence and change agents are counting on us making.
Dr. Shiller states the principles of behavior finance are:
Wishful thinking: "people tend to make the error of believing what they want to believe, leading to biased probablility." An example of this kind of erronous thinking is believing your team will win or the candidate you voted for will win just because you want them to.
Attention Anomalies: "human attention tend to be sporadic, we make errors in attention." We give too much attention to some things while we pay too little attention to other things. Shiller argues that people tend to pay attention to what other people are paying attention to. Thus, we give excess attention to the media lead agenda setters (nudge). Consequently, we forget the details and specifics but remember generalities. My textbook calls this online judgement: judgement that is made at the moment that is processed and then is stored and determines our attitude formation and behavior.
Anchoring: "people make quanative judgements by subconsciously using some arbitrary stimulus. Then we tend to have over confidence in our anchored judgements...we think we know." Besure to look back at last nights blog to see how useful Sunstein and Thaler thinks anchors are. Remember anchors are placed and well-chosen nudges.
Representativeness Heuristics: "This refers to a human tendency to judge events on basis of similarity to other events that are prominent in our mind without regard to the actual probability of the event."
These key terms should help to inform you more closely of the mistakes we make in our assumptions that the choice architects, influence and change agents are counting on us making.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)